'Natural meadow' or 'obnoxious growth'? Branchburg judge hears one side

Conferring with Branchburg resident Jim Girvan (bending to read a document) are his attorney Daniel Somer (left), Sharon Girvan and Devito of the New Jersey Conservation Foundation. A municipal judge dismissed the charge that he. Photo by Warren Cooper.

BRANCHBURG — A decision won't come before next month in the case of a Branchburg couple fighting a $100 fine for refusing to mow what the zoning officer deemed "obnoxious growth."

Jim and Sharon Girvan did not get a chance on Sept. 12, to explain to Municipal Judge William Kelleher why their effort to aid a flood-prone area of their property revert to a natural floodplain meadow falls outside the borough ordinance that considers untrimmed weeds and grasses a sign of neglect.

Girvans' attorney, Daniel Somers, had failed to share with Municipal Prosecutor Christopher "Kip" Bateman his intention to call an expert witness or share the witness' likely testimony, as is required. When Bateman complained, Kelleher delayed the defendants' appearance until Oct. 3, after Somers complies with the rules of discovery.

At its heart, the debate seems little more than a North Branch neighbor dispute. But the Girvans see it as a fight for conservation and against the suburban ethic that views anything other than a neatly mowed lawn as suspect.

For neighbors Debbie and Nicholas Pigna, the Girvans' riparian meadow is simply a lot of weeds and a sign of neglect.

The Pignas complained to Township Zoning officer Tom Leach. Leach viewed the property and decided that its unkempt condition met the municipality's definition of "neglecting to maintain property," so he ordered the Girvans to mow the lawn. When they refused, Leach issued the Garvins a $100 fine for violating the township's zoning laws by allowing "obnoxious growth" on their property.

But when attorney Somers pressed Leach, the zoning officer was unable to define obnoxious growth, except by saying that he recognized it when he saw it.

Somers argued that the law is inadequately written, that it depends too much on the aesthetics of the zoning officer.

That's wrong, Somers argued. “The law average citizen is entitled to know what the law says.”

Under questioning by Bateman and cross examination by Somers, Leach said he's written few citations under the statute, although he's ordered that the lawns of vacant properties be mowed by outside contractors and the property owner billed.

When Debbie Pigna testified for the municipality, Somers tried to make her acknowledge that parts of her property, especially on the far side of the creek that runs behind the two houses, is also overgrown and unkempt. It's not the same, Pigna argued, because that condition dates to when the property was subdivided and her house was built a dozen years ago. It's already filled in with trees and bushes, she said.

Besides, Pigna said, "I never go back there. Why should I?" It's beyond the back yard, she said. "Nobody can see it."

Ahead of the hearing, the Girvans' expert, Emil Devito of the New Jersey Conservation Foundation gave a hint of the direction of his testimony, which now won't be heard earlier than Oct. 3, at 7 p.m.

Devito said that bluebirds, the New Jersey state bird, “used to be rare, now they’re common again because of efforts like these.”

He ticked off a long list of state and federal agencies that are attempting to do exactly what the Girvans have done to promote wildlife, “watershed associations, non profits, the US Environmental Protection Agency, the state Department of Environmental Protection," he said, "everybody."